Flights are grounded – is this the moment we give
up our addiction to flying?
Nicole
Badstuber
If the government ends up with a stake in the airline
industry, it should steer transport policy towards a lower air-travel future
Thu 9 Apr
2020 06.00 BSTLast modified on Thu 9 Apr 2020 11.01 BST
‘By 2050,
aviation was forecast to account for almost a quarter of emissions worldwide
and be the most polluting sector in the UK.’ Grounded British Airways planes at
Bournemouth International Airport. Photograph: James Marsh/Rex/Shutterstock
Passenger
air travel has come to a virtual standstill. EasyJet has grounded its entire
fleet, and Ryanair has announced it will not resume commercial flights before
June. British Airways has elected to suspend 36,000 staff and has closed its
operations at Gatwick and London City airports until further notice. Overall,
passenger flights have decreased by up to 95%. With job losses for airline and
airport staff likely to reach hundreds of thousands, the government’s priority
is, unsurprisingly, securing workers’ income and keeping strategic routes open.
But if
government intervenes and looks to buy a stake in airlines, this could be a
turning point in transport policy, as the pandemic allows us to pivot to a
lower air-travel future. We are already being forced to rethink how we move
around, conduct business, keep up family ties and maintain friendships in a
globalised world without aviation – a dire necessity, given the urgency of the
climate emergency.
Estimates
by the International Air Transport Association suggest that only 30 of more
than 700 airlines will survive the next few months without government
intervention. In response to warnings of airport closures and airline
bankruptcies, the chancellor Rishi Sunak has promised government support, but
only after all other commercial options have been exhausted, such as raising
funds from existing investors. Virgin Atlantic estimates the sector needs up to
£7.5bn of immediate government support. Some airlines are already cutting costs
by standing down staff and halting commercial services.
Aviation emissions are not attributed to any
country’s tally – a blind spot in commitments on climate change
Attaching
conditions to government support rather than writing the industry a blank
cheque is important. Any rescue plan should be conditional on those airlines
providing critical transport services, including repatriation and freight. This
could mean acting as an operator of last resort – akin to the directly operated
railways, such as LNER. Sunak has been clear that any deal would be “structured
to protect tax interests”, but partially nationalising a few key airlines would
make more strategic sense. With a stake in the industry, the government will be
able to directly steer aviation policy and reconsider how it fits into
long-term transport strategy.
Even under
a high or low fuel-saving scenario, emissions by the aviation sector are set to
double or triple by 2050. In recent years we have seen a boost in air travel by
an average of between 4% and 5% a year. By 2050, aviation was forecast to
account for almost a quarter of emissions worldwide and be the most polluting
sector in the UK. Air travel is also a sector that predominantly caters to a
wealthier demographic. The richest 10% account for 60% of all flights
purchased. And it is worth remembering that aviation emissions are not
attributed to any country’s tally – a blind spot in international commitments
on climate change. Public oversight of the industry makes all the more sense
given recent claims that airlines are trying to “dodge” their climate obligations
in light of the current crisis.
With a
stake in the airlines, the government could directly oversee a policy of
reducing air travel, which would be part of a wider low-carbon transport
strategy. Applying pricing tools such as a frequent flyer penalty, carbon
emissions-based tax or airport user surcharge would discourage air travel. At
the same time, government should invest in alternatives such as rail and bus
services – including sleeper trains and coaches for long-distance travel and
also telecommunications infrastructure to enable widespread working away from
the office. The personal cost to airline and airport staff should not be
dismissed. New investment in more sustainable transport services and
infrastructure will create new jobs, including in customer service, logistics
and engineering. The government could provide targeted training so airline and
airport staff can acquire different work within the transport sector.
From
consumer’s point of view, the current interruption of global air travel is also
an opportunity to shape future travel behaviours. The work, business and social
habits adopted during the coronavirus crisis might spark a renewed sense of
“flygskam”, or flight shame. This notion, in response to campaigner Greta
Thunberg’s activism, has shifted travel behaviour in Sweden, with railway
passenger numbers up 17% and air travel down 4%, comparing the summers of 2018
and 2019. In a 2019 survey by Swedish Railways 37% specifically chose rail over
air – up from 26% the previous year.
We’ve known
for years that we need to radically change our attitude to flying; Covid-19
could be the nudge we all needed.
Nicole
Badstuber is a transport policy and travel behaviour researcher at University
College London and the University of Westminster
Sem comentários:
Enviar um comentário